How are right and wrong defined?

“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” Solomon’s words still hold true today. The idea of morals and ethics go by the sideline when compared to man’s avarice, greed and general ego-centrism. A common example of the depravity of man tends to be our political figures. Many people consider the idea of a political commission entitled an “Ethics Panel” oxymoronic. It seems that politicians in recent history have been more concerned with themselves than they have been about the public they are to serve. Even the very idea of ‘service’ seems to have been “re-imagined”.

Congressman Charles Rangel, a Representative from New York’s 15th district and former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is faced with an investigation by the House Ethics Panel that thus far has entailed 28,000 pages culminating in 13 misconduct allegations concerning his failure to disclose income. These failed disclosures include rental income from a vacation property in the Dominican Republic and more than $600,000 in income. Rangel maintains that he is innocent, even though it is obvious that he didn’t disclose the information.

Fox News reported Rangel as saying: “I'm prepared to prove that the only thing I've ever had in my 50 years of public service is service,…That's what I've done and if I've been overzealous providing that service, I can't make an excuse for the serious violations."

One wonders if Rangel will be held accountable and if he is expelled from the House whether or not this most senior member of New York’s congressional delegation will be re-elected to fill his own vacancy. It wouldn’t be the first time such a thing occurred in New York’s 15th district. Rangel’s predecessor, Adam Clayton Powell Jr., Chairman of the powerful Congressional Education and Labor Committee, was found to have “misappropriated” Committee funds for personal use. On March 1, 1967 the House voted to exclude him. Then in November of the same year, he won the election to the vacant seat and joined the 91st Congress! He held that position until Rangel defeated him in the primary in 1970, the year that Rangel won the seat.

This information may seem trivial to some, yet it is a sad commentary on our society. If a member of Congress is shown to have used public funds for personal gain, is removed from his seat and then the people of the district re-elect him, is there any hope that the moral fiber of the populace is any better today than it was 40 years ago? Indeed, “there is nothing new under the sun.” The mere fact that a senior member of Congress can call breaking the law “service”, doesn’t bode well for society.

The basic idea in question here is: How are right and wrong defined? Do we really need an “Ethics Panel” to determine right and wrong? The most disturbing part of the Ethics Panel is the fact that they were at one time working on a plea deal with Mr. Rangel. If an average citizen were to withhold the same type of information and use funds in the same fashion as either Rangel or Powell, the public would want the proverbial ‘book’ thrown at them. It would seem that Orwell was right, in that “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” The ability to determine right from wrong and good from evil is innate within people. The only reason it is debated is in order to justify knowingly doing wrong.

Adam Clayton Powell Jr.

The worldview that supports this type of thinking is a humanistic worldview. That somehow, man is the arbiter of right and wrong, instead of God. Thinking that man’s ways are above God’s ways is backwards. Ideas of a ‘social gospel’ and ‘social justice’ seem to be the ideas du jour; certainly they were not strange topics of discussion Powell. They were common themes preached on by his father and later himself as the pastors of the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem. Within the ‘social gospel’ message any concept of individual responsibility and personal culpability are taboo. Yet the very mindset of collectivism and relativism are what society seems to be embracing today. People may rant against the application of these ideas within the political arena, even if they think them par for the course. Yet they don’t seem to realize the application of the same ideas when it comes to their everyday lives.

The ability to determine right from wrong as it applies to all falls to the wayside when people are faced with it in their own lives. Situational ethics become THE method of determination. Morals and values get placed on the back burner when the ends justify the means. “You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.” People have no problem justifying themselves while pointing their fingers or looking down their noses at politicians like Rangel and Powell. Why is there a difference?

Could it be that people find it easier to judge others than to look at themselves critically? Maybe it is the difference between facts and values, or public and private lives? Try to tell another person that what they did was wrong or that there is a standard of right and wrong that applies to everyone and see what happens. You will be faced with disagreement, anger, resentment, and cries of intolerance.

Somehow stating that there is a standard of right and wrong that has been determined not by man, but by God is considered ‘wrong’. Those that preach ‘tolerance’ will not ‘tolerate’ anyone who tells them they are ‘wrong’ about the definition of right and wrong. Do you see the lack of logic, the contradiction, the hypocrisy?

Society in the U.S. isn’t in the condition it is in because of all the rascals in politics. All the rascals in politics are in politics, BECAUSE society is in the condition it is in. “We the people” have allowed the slow but steady decay of value and morals in the public arena. The idea of relativistic truth or “what’s true for you might not be true for me.” is the culprit.

Some may wonder why Rangel is treating the situation so trivially, but if he must face the House Judiciary Committee, then maybe this will offer some possible insight as to why Rangel doesn’t seem worried. The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Democratic Congressman John Conyers is quoted as saying concerning the massive healthcare bill: “I love these members that get up and say “Read the bill!”. What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

This type of statement can allow us a bit on insight into the way The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee sees right and wrong. It would appear that to him, right and wrong are not defined by an outside entity, but rather situational ethics or subjectivism prevails. Right and wrong are determined by the circumstances and the ends, the means are trivial.

It would seem that it isn’t only the economy that is in a downturn. Until people decide to stand up and speak forth truth backed by a commitment to the righteous standard of God, then we will see more of the same. In the meantime, people like Charlie Rangel will be let of easy and won’t sweat a drop worrying about if what they do is right or wrong, because they get to define them.

For more thoughts on politics and morals check out The Reality Check, Where Truth Matters!

Religious Freedom in America?

If asked, most people would say that the United States of America allows for the free practice of religion.  Many would point to the First Amendment of the Constitution and say: “Religious Freedom”.  While it is true that the Constitutional Amendment does say that the government shall “make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press…”  What people don’t realize is that in the ‘Greatest Nation on Earth’, that is exactly what is happening today.

To see through the shadowy mist that is political correctness, we need to simplify the situation and break it down to the smallest common denominator.  When people today talk about tolerance, diversity, and freedom of speech the people speaking those words may intend them to mean the obvious, but in reality they way they are applied is totally the opposite.  Religious freedom entails the ability to disagree with an immoral act.  But those who cry tolerance will not tolerate that kind of religious freedom.  Religious freedom demands that adherents be allowed to live out their belief system, but in the case of Julea Ward, a former graduate student at Eastern Michigan University expelled for refusing to change her Christian view of homosexuality as immoral.

While some Christians may disagree with Ward’s actions in light of the scriptures, what we see here is the government dictating what a person can or cannot believe.  It doesn’t seem like a very tolerant view, does it?  So much for religious freedom.  What is happening is simple.  The Christian worldview is not allowed to be followed by Christians as they live, work, or go to school out in the public arena.  Politically correct proponents would point out that the public arena must be void of value and moral judgments to allow for true freedom.  But the reality check is this:  One value system is being replaced by another.  To simplify:

Value A:

Homosexuality is immoral

Value B:

Homosexuality is not immoral

They will replace value A with value B and say that it is objective, tolerant and tell those who believe value A they can believe it, but they can’t force their morals and values on others.  They call this religious freedom.  They don't see that they forced their moral and values on others.  The hypocrisy continues!

What is taking place is the court system and (by extension) the government is replacing one value system with another.  It isn’t objective, it isn’t tolerant, and it does violate the First Amendment in that it is prohibiting the free expression of religion.  On the sidelines the “Church” sits by without so much as a whimper.  When did we come to understand that right and wrong are defined by any court?  When did we just give up the ‘fight’?  If we truly stand for religious freedom, shouldn’t someone at least ask; “Whose value system gets to replace the current one?” 

People need to understand that in order to have religious freedom in a nation; they are going to be offended.  We all have the right to live in accordance with the religion we choose.  We all have the right to pray or not to pray, even in public.  WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEMAND THAT NO ONE OFFEND US.  That isn’t religious freedom at all, that is a soft tyranny of, by and for the people.  Think about it, if you were never allowed to do or say anything that might cause offense to another person, would you have any kind of freedom at all?  Absolutely not.  Would you have true religious freedom?  Same answer…not at all!

 The nature of reality dictates that there are absolutes.  We must be willing to allow other to believe a view that is contrary to the view we hold.  The idea of ‘tolerance’ doesn’t preclude disagreement it requires it.  If we can force an individual or group to only hold their belief system in the privacy of their own homes but not in the public arena, then we have done nothing more than to stab religious freedom in the heart. 

No one can say that they demand objectivity in the public arena when it comes to a moral stance, it is impossible to achieve.  In the United States, the people have witnessed a slippery slope, a sly shift or a re-defining  or re-imagining of the idea of religious freedom.  Now we have freedom from religion, not freedom of religion.  Religious freedom was so important to our founders that the first amendment to the young Constitution was written to ensure that the people truly had religious freedom.  To ensure that the government couldn’t decide what moral value system people in all the states adhered to.  They ensured religious freedom for all people in all times.   Of course, it has been a long time since the politicians or courts have had too much concern with the Constitution, except when it is used to block something they have wanted to do…that they just won’t tolerate!

For more information on religious freedom and other interesting subjects, read some of the articles on our main site The Reality Check Where Truth Matters!

The Reality Check is blogging

Hello everyone!  This first blog is just to welcome you all here today and thank you for taking the time to stop by and see what is going on with us here at The Reality Check.

We will begin our full time blogging in the very near future.  But for now, suffice it to say that we will be writing about a great number of things that are not necessarily part of our full site.  The site The Reality Check, will be getting a face-lift here in the near future and some added content and opportunities for you to interact, support and opt-in.  I don't want to give anything away, so you'll just have to check back in regularly to see what we have in the works.

For those of you who are actively involved in social media, The Reality Check has a Facebook page that you can become a fan of.  We haven't had a lot of activity in the past, but that is all going to change.

In the meantime, because truth matters...here is a book that I cannot help but recommend to everyone interested in understanding more about Truth and the Christian walk.  It helps to draw a distinction between partial truths that are touted in the relativistic form and what Francis Schaeffer called True Truth.  The book is called Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity by Nancy Pearcy.  If there is one book you buy this year, this should be the one.















Till the next time!